Molinet v. Van Orsdel Family Funeral Chapels, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D84 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 7, 2026)

A man died in a hospital. He was survived by two adult children and his sister, but his ex-wife was listed as his next of kin. She did not respond when the hospital called to tell her the man—who had been living a transient lifestyle, and had lived in a facility for alcohol and substance abuse—had died.

The hospital ultimately transferred the man’s remains to a funeral home, because it had run out of room in its morgue. The defendant funeral home stored him in an overflow refrigeration unit after having been transported by a third party in a non-refrigerated truck, in the same material he was in when he died. A private investigator the survivors hired finally tracked him down there. When the survivors asked the defendant to transfer the body, it advised that it was not presentable enough after two months of storage, and that he should be cremated.

The plaintiffs sued a funeral home on claims including tortious interference with a dead body and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered summary judgment for the funeral home.

The Third District affirmed the summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims for non-economic emotional distress damages, concluding that the record did not support the type of wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct required for that recovery.

However, the court did reverse as to the plaintiffs’ economic damages theory, which was premised on alleged violations of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act (Chapter 497). The trial court had erroneously required a showing of “malicious conduct” for the economic damages, which the Third District held was error, and it remanded for the trial court to determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on the alleged statutory violations.